The court emphasized the need for fair reengagement practices for terminated employees, ruling that dismissal based on erroneous policy interpretation constitutes discrimination under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, J.

The petitioner has laid challenge to an order dated 29.03.2017 (Annexure A-4), passed by respondent No.2, whereby the claim of the petitioner for his reengagement as DPE on Parents Teacher Association (for short ‘PTA’) basis has been rejected on the ground that neither the petitioner was covered under PTA-GIA nor his services were terminated by Enquiry Committee or on joining of regular incumbent.

2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner who was having the qualification of Bachelor of Physical Education, was appointed as DPE on the recommendations of the PTA body vide office order dated 02.07.2007 (Annexure P-2) issued by respondent No.4- Principal, in Government Senior Secondary School (for short ‘GSSS’) Jassai, District Kangra, H.P., which post was lying vacant. The petitioner was asked to join his duties w.e.f. 03.07.2007 and earlier to this, he was working as Machine Operator in a private limited factory at Baddi. Though the petitioner was performing his duties with respondent No.4- School with full sincerity, devotion, honesty as well as to the entire satisfaction of his superiors, but his services had been terminated on the pretext that a regular DPE has joined in the said school. A news item had appeared in the daily newspaper on 01.09.2013, when the State Government had ordered to re-instate the services of 61 Grant-in-Aid (for short ‘GIA’) proposed PTA teachers, and the petitioner had made a representation dated 13.10.2013, for his re-appointment on PTA basis. However, no response was received by him and thereafter, he had preferred an appeal against his removal before the Additional District Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, who vide order dated 18.11.2014 (Annexure P-6), after hearing respondent No.4, had allowed the appeal and the PTA of GSSS Jassai, was ordered to appoint him against the vacant post of DPE, on PTA basis subject to the fulfillment of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules (for short ‘R&P Rules’) of the Government for the said post.

3. After the decision, the petitioner made representation on 23.01.2015 and thereafter sent a reminder on 25.05.2015 to respondents No.2 & 3, but despite availability of vacant post of DPE, no action was taken, which compelled him to approach this Court by way of writ petition bearing CWP No. 2919 of 2016, titled, Kashmir Singh vs. State of H.P. and others. The said petition was disposed of on 21.11.2016, with a direction to the respondents to examine the representations made by the petitioner and make a decision thereupon within eight weeks, as per the Rules occupying the field. After passing of the order by this Court, the petitioner made representation to the respondents and thereafter respondent No.2 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that as per the submission of the Principal, GSSS Jassai, the petitioner was never covered under PTA-GIA Rules nor his services were terminated by Enquiry Committee or joining of a regular incumbent.

4. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order has preferred the present writ petition before this Court on the grounds that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It has been averred that respondent No.2 has wrongly concluded that the petitioner was never covered under PTA-GIA, whereas, as per office order dated 22.01.2008 (page-47), the respondents had sanctioned the funds under GIA to PTA in th